Product sustainability scorecard

ABSTRACT

Suggested is a method for identifying fragrance compounds with low environmental impact and high degree of sustainability encompassing the following steps: (a) providing a fragrance compound or a fragrance composition of interest; (b) calculating scores for each of the following parameters (b1) biodegradability; (b2) biodiversity; (b3) carbon dioxide impact; (b4) process safety with regard to ecological toxicity; (b5) process safety with regard to human toxicity; (b6) land use; (b7) renewability; (b8) traceability; (b9) waste generation; and (b10) water consumption and/or pollution, (c) summing up all scores and calculate the average product sustainability score (PSC); and (d) proceed with those candidates showing a PSC of at least 70.

FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention belongs to the area of cosmetics in general and fragrances in particular and refers to a method for identifying the environmental impact of new compounds with regard to key parameters as for example biodegradability and carbon dioxide production.

STATE OF THE ART

Worldwide companies develop, produce and sell about hundred thousand fragrances, flavours and cosmetic ingredients which are based on roughly 50,000 mostly natural raw materials, as for example vanilla, citrus products, onions, fish, meat or flower and plant materials.

With extensive global sourcing comes great responsibility. According to regulatory requirements with increasing complexity every year new products are subject to strict sustainability requirements. Moving towards a sustainable product development, it is desirous to anticipate coming legal requirements by rating the chemical substances sourced in particular for fragrances individually, to get a better understanding of the degree of sustainability for each product. The aim of the present invention is providing a scoring model, called “Product Sustainability Scorecard” to increase transparency of the environmental impact of fragrances and related raw materials to facilitate product development. Therefore, the aim of the present invention is providing a method to satisfy the needs explained above.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

Object of the present invention is a method for identifying fragrance compounds with low environmental impact and high degree of sustainability encompassing the following steps:

(a) providing a fragrance compound or a fragrance composition of interest; (b) calculating scores for each of the following parameters

(b1) biodegradability;

(b2) biodiversity;

(b3) carbon dioxide impact;

(b4) process safety with regard to ecological toxicity;

(b5) process safety with regard to human toxicity;

(b6) land use;

(b7) renewability;

(b8) traceability;

(b9) waste generation; and

(b10) water consumption and/or pollution,

(c) summing up all scores and calculate the average product sustainability score (PSC); and (d) proceed with those candidates showing a PSC of at least 70.

The Product Sustainability Scorecard (“PSS”) allows measuring the material performance within the following parameters which are considered having the highest impact on environment as compiled in parameters (b1) to (b10).

The results from PSS allow evaluating the environmental impact of fragrance prior to its production based on fundamental research results. In order to provide new compounds which not only match with market requirements in terms of olfactory performance, but also comply with regulatory requirements and the overall approach for providing only new products with high sustainability and low environmental impact, the invention is not a simple instruction to human mind, but provides a technical teaching which shortens development times and is therefore also of serious economic importance.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

All parameters of the model are normalized to a scale from 0 to 100 without a dimension. However, units of pre-calculation steps are defined in the aspects of the different scorecard parameters. Objects of investigation for the scorecard were minimum 80% of the top raw materials, extrapolated to the entire material portfolio.

Environmental aspects of raw materials from waste streams like e.g. an orange peel, eucalyptus leafs etc. are not considered in this model.

Valuable side streams such as dipropylene glycol from 1,2-Propandiol production are allocated according to their molar masses. For example calculation for carbon dioxide impact followed the equation:

(Propylene oxide CO₂ value*Propylene oxide Molar Mass+Propylene glycol CO₂ value*Propylene glycol Molar/Mass) Dipropylene glycol Molar Mass

System Boundaries

Table 1 provides an overview of factors possibly occurring in the life cycle of cosmetic products in general and fragrances in particular, but were not considered in the course of the present invention:

TABLE 1 System boundaries Factor Background Transport Transport is considered to have minor impacts in comparison to processing of raw materials. Services Services are considered to have minor impacts in comparison to processing of raw materials. Catalysts The use of catalysts is often non-public information. However, catalysts are usually only used in low dosages and can be reused several times before disposal. The environmental impact is therefore considered as low. Solvents used The use of solvents is often non-public information. However, solvents are usually cleaned after usage and reused several times before disposal. The standard factors for distillation/crystallization also include distillation of solvents. Due to strong customer requirements, critical solvents like ICH Q3c class 1 and 2 are usually strictly controlled. After reviewing related supplier information, only ten raw materials identified came from suppliers who stated that class 1 or 2 solvents could be included. Reviewing five possible solvents, we found out that they seem to be caused mainly by precursors e.g. Toluene, Methanol or Benzene as reactants. This aspect is already assessed by the (Eco) Toxicity evaluation. For the other five materials, only class 2 materials are used and volume use in fragrances is low. For these reasons QC specifications are sufficient to restrict the critical use of such solvents. Carbon footprint Heating or cooling is not evaluated due to low impact (low specific heat capacity related data in comparison to distillation or crystallization) e.g. warming of acetic acid to 800° C. produces a carbon footprint of approx. 0.1 kg CO₂/kg product Energy consumption like e.g. pumping, warming of raw material, heating of buildings of administration etc. is not considered due to low relevance Packaging is excluded. High volume products are usually delivered in reusable containers and the impact is comparably low. Other GHG emissions such as CH₄ and N₂O are not considered due to low relevance. The CO₂ factor is seen as sufficient to evaluate possible impact. CO₂ related to deforestation is not considered. Land use parameters are used instead. The individual energy mix is only considered if known, otherwise standard factors are used. Volatile Organic VOCs are not considered. Most of the ingredients of fragrances fall into this Compound category, making comparisons redundant. Equipment used The environmental footprint of equipment is not considered. Usually equipment is used for long periods and the impact is negligible. Genetic Modified GMOs may have an impact to e.g. biodiversity, but the direct use of such materials Organism is low and derivatives from global markets are mostly commodities were possible influences to agriculture practices is also low. In the scope of the top 80% raw materials no GMO is identified. Convention on As far as some of these materials are still being used, certifications are provided. International Trade in CITES materials are not in the scope of the top 80% fragrance portfolio. Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Materials Animal derived Very low volumes of animal derived materials are used in fragrances. Therefore materials materiality is considered as quite low.

Selection of Scorecard Criteria

One essential step of sustainable business is to make business related issues transparent to the public. Traceability thorough the entire supply chain is a crucial parameter. It is therefore an important aspect defined in the present product sustainability scorecard. Another guide to the present invention represent the so-called “nine planetary boundaries”, a central concept in an earth system framework proposed by a group of earth system and environmental scientists. The framework was first introduced in 2009, when a group of 28 internationally renowned scientists identified and quantified the first set of nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. Crossing these boundaries could generate abrupt or irreversible environmental changes. Respecting the boundaries reduces the risks to human society of crossing these thresholds. It is one scope of the present invention to assess related concerns. The planetary boundaries are shown in Table 2:

TABLE 2 Planetary boundaries Planetary Boundaries Main causes 1. Stratospheric ozone depletion Anthropogenic ozone-depleting chemical substances 2. Loss of biosphere integrity Demand for food, water and natural resources (biodiversity loss and extinctions) 3. Chemical pollution and the Emissions of Toxicity and long-living substances such as release of novel entities synthetic organic pollutants, heavy metal compounds and radioactive materials 4. Climate Change CO₂ 5. Ocean acidification CO₂ 6. Freshwater consumption and the Water use, CO₂ global hydrological cycle 7. Land system change Forests, grasslands, wetlands and other vegetation types have primarily been converted to agricultural land 8. Nitrogen and phosphorus flows Fertilizer production and application into the biosphere and oceans 9. Atmospheric aerosol loading Many pollutant gases condense into droplets and particles, also through land use change which increases the release of dust and smoke into the air

Another guide to the present invention are the so-called “12 principles of Green Chemistry”, which also define environmental impact of a compound Green chemistry is an area of chemistry and chemical engineering focused on the design of products and processes that minimize the use and generation of hazardous substances. Paul Anastas of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formulated some simple rules of thumb for how sustainability can be achieved in the production of chemicals—the “Green chemical principles”. The principles are summarised in Table 3:

TABLE 3 Principles of Green Chemistry Green Chemistry Principle 1. PREVENTION It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it has already been created. 2. ATOM ECONOMY Synthetic methods should be designed to maximize the incorporation of all materials used in the process for the final product. 3. LESS HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL SYNTHESES Wherever possible, practicable synthetic methods should be designed to use and generate sub- stances that possess little or no toxicity to human health and the environment. 4. DESIGNING SAFER CHEMICALS Chemical products should be designed to affect their desired function while minimizing their toxicity. 5. SAFER SOLVENTS AND AUXILIARIES The use of auxiliary substances (e.g., solvents, separation agents, etc.) should be made unnecessary wherever possible and innocuous when used. 6. DESIGNING FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY Energy requirements of chemical processes should be recognized for their environmental and economic impacts and should be minimized. If possible, synthetic methods should be conducted at ambient temperature and pressure. 7. USE OF RENEWABLE FEEDSTOCKS A raw material or feedstock should be renewable rather than depleting whenever technically and economically practicable. 8. REDUCE DERIVATES Unnecessary derivatization (use of blocking groups, protection/deprotection, temporary modification of physical/chemical processes) should be minimized or avoided if possible, because such steps require additional reagents and can generate waste. 9. CATALYSIS Catalytic reagents (as selective as possible) are superior to stoichiometric reagents. 10. DESIGN FOR DEGRADATION Chemical products should be designed so that at the end of their function they break down into innocuous degradation products and do not persist in the environment. 11. REAL-TIME ANALYIS FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION Analytical methodologies need to be further developed to allow for real-time, in-process monitoring and control prior to the formation of hazardous substances. 12. INHERENT SAFER CHEMISTRY FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION Substances and the form of a substance used in a chemical process should be chosen to minimize the potential for chemical accidents, including releases, explosions, and fires.

Considering traceability of products the nine planetary boundaries and twelve principles of green chemistry formed a basis for calculating possible impact of products on environment in terms of the ten categories presented above. From these findings ten criteria for setting up a Product Sustainability Scorecard were developed.

Basically, all fragrance compositions can be covered by the methodology according to the present invention. A minimum of 80% of raw material by mass (kg) is evaluated.

The Method of Scoring and Weighting of Scorecard Criteria

FIG. 1 provides an overview of the entire value chain from basic chemicals to taw materials suitable for fragrance production.

The following parameters were identified as important to meet the requirements for sustainable product development.

-   -   Biodegradability,     -   Biodiversity,     -   CO₂ production,     -   (Eco-) Toxicity,     -   Land use,     -   Renewability,     -   Traceability,     -   Waste production and     -   Water consumption.

All parameters were considered to be of equal importance. The result of all parameters can be averaged to score a singly raw material or a complete formula. In the following it is explained in detail how the scores for each of the parameters (b1) to (b10) can be calculated.

Biodegradability

Biodegradation is one of the most important factors in assessing the environmental fate of chemicals. Biodegradation is the chemical dissolution of materials by bacteria, fungi, or other biological means. Biodegradability is evaluated according to the OECD Method 301/302 or equivalent. The tests of the OECD test series 301 (A-F) verify whether a substance is able for complete biodegradation under aerobic conditions. Different test methods are available for well or poorly soluble as well as volatile substances. The test usually takes 28 days. Test items must reach 60% biodegradation within 10 days to be classified as ‘ready biodegradable’.

The scoring of precursors of petro-chemicals has no influence on the scoring of the product. It is assumed that such precursors are used in the production process, making them irrelevant for the assessment of the final product.

For products made of renewable material with high E-factors and low biodegradability in low regulated countries, it is assumed that residues in waste could harm the environment. Therefore the values of biodegradability of precursors are also taken into account for the product scorecard (e.g. peppermint oil).

The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme 1:

Scheme 1: Scoring

Step 1 Evaluation of the “Biodegradability Score” of the Fragrance Raw Material Based on the Following Scoring System

. . . “Ready Biodegradable” >The scoring is based on the biodegradation Data Source: according to OECD value of a chemical according to OECD 301; ‘Ready Biodegradable’ 301 e.g. 70% biodegradation after 28-day test Certificate period = score of 70 000 No data available >If no data is available, a score of 0 applies Data Source: /

Biodiversity

Biodiversity is the variety of different types of life found on earth and the variations within species. Possible impacts to Biodiversity are evaluated as compiled in Table 3:

TABLE 3 Typical impacts on biodiversity Typical Impacts Habitat Removal and Conversion of lands to agriculture and/or poor agricultural practices (e.g. Alteration crop rotation, fertilizer, pesticides) also degrade soil quality and reduce species. Land use Covered in Land use parameter. Overharvesting/Over- Usually applicable to wood products and considered accordantly. exploitation Pollution (Water/Air) Covered in (Eco) Toxicity parameter Introduction of exotic Usually not applicable due to low relevance of animal derivatives in species fragrances. However, if issues are known related to Symrise raw material this aspect will be evaluated too. Climate change Covered in CO₂ parameter Genetic modified GMOs may have an impact to e.g. biodiversity, but the direct use of organism (GMO) such materials is low and derivatives from global markets are mostly commodities were possible influences to agriculture practices is also low. Water use High impact on biodiversity losses related to water stress (see https://www.cbd.int/iyb/doc/prints/iyb-netherlands-watercrisis.pdf). Covered in water parameter. Using raw material from The approach of Symrise is to avoid such materials. However, some of endangered species these materials are still being used, but only if certifications are provided.

The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme 2:

Scheme 2: Scoring

STEP 1 evaluation of the “Bio-Diversity Score” of the fragrance raw material based on the following scoring system

100 Reactant is side >If a substance is a side product from a resource Data Source: product/results (e.g. orange, wood) that was cultivated for other Research from waste purposes in the first place, a score of 100 applies. streams Primary products, such as orange juice or wood for the furniture industry may harm the environment. However, users of so called “waste products” (such as orange peels) have a low impact, as the environment would also be harmed without using waste streams. 100 Reactant results >If a substance results from chemical synthesis, the Data Source: from chemical impact of process pollutions and climate change are Research synthesis (without already covered and therefore a score of 100 applies. known issues) 100 Naturals from >If naturals are sourced from biodiversity hot spots Data Source: non-biodiversity the risk of destruction of biodiversity by traditional Research/Link hotspots farming is high. Sourcing of material from non-critical areas is considered as not highly risky. To identify possible biodiversity hotspots where highest risks to biodiversity are expected, the following tool was used: http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/Pages/ default.aspx 100 Global bulk >For big bulk products which are produced in more Data Source: products than 1.000 t/annum a score of 100 applies since List of Basic Chemicals → Production products derived in high tonnages are considered as and Production volume of less critical. A detailed list can be found here: Basic Volumes >1.000 t/annum Chemicals and Production and here / http://echa.europa.eu/de/ http://echa.europa.eu/ 1000 t is the threshold value of REACH. Experience de/ has shown that large producers have a high degree of automatization ensuring advanced process control due to REACH requirements and cost pressure. Small suppliers are not as well-positioned. 100 Naturals UEBT >UEBT is one of the highest global certification Data Source: verified standards for biodiversity Certification 075 Naturals UEBT >If naturals are not UEBT verified but at least UEBT Data Source: member and raw member, a score of 75 applies, since UEBT members Certification material self- are regularly audited assessment (Rating > 75%) 075 Naturals Global >If naturals are verified by GAP, Rainforest Alliance, Data Source: GAP, Rainforest Fair Trade or RSPO, a score of 75 applies. Such certifi- Certification Alliance, Fair cation usually limits fertilizers and pesticides. Also Trade, RSPO etc. some additional environmental measures are enforced. 050 Origin from EU >The EU has started to link subsidies related to good Data Source: countries environmental practice Sourcing Information 025 Own growing >Some supplier set own standards to e.g. limit the Data Source: standard including use of fertilizers and pesticides Certification biodiversity topics not externally verified 000 Naturals, No >If no data is available, a score of 0 applies Data Source: / further information STEP 2 Calculation of the “Biodiversity Score” (BS) of the fragrance raw material. Each reactant Counts into the Product Result Related to Molar Masses Used:

${BS} = \frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {{Biodivers}.^{\prime} +}} \\ {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {{Biodivers}.^{\prime}}} \end{pmatrix}}{\left( {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} + {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} + \ldots}\mspace{14mu} \right)}$

Carbon Dioxide Impact

Carbon dioxide emissions are those stemming from the burning of fossil fuels and the manufacturing of cement. They include carbon dioxide produced during consumption of solid, liquid, and gas fuels and gas flaring. The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme 3:

Scheme 3: Scoring

-   STEP 1 Research of the CO₂ emissions of each reactant based on     public databases like Probas. -   STEP 2 Calculation of the CO₂ emissions of the fragrance raw     material resulting from its reactants (“Reactant Based CO2     Emissions”=RBCE). Each reactant counts into the product result     related to molar masses used:

${RBCE} = \frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {{CO}_{2}}^{\prime}} +} \\ {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {CO}_{2}\mspace{14mu} {\ldots \mspace{14mu}}^{\prime}} \end{pmatrix}}{{\,^{\prime}{Product}}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}}$

-   STEP 3 Addition of CO₂ emissions resulting from processing:

Reactant based CO₂ emissions+Process based CO₂ emissions

-   -   The following ‘standard processing factors’ are used (Table 4).         These standard factors are based on average indicators of the         industry and internal assumptions. If further information is         available such data will be used preferably.

TABLE 4 Standard processing factors Water Pyrolysis Steam & Distillation & Fermentation & Distillation No Process Distillation Pyrolysis Distillation Crystallization Crystallization Crystallization (generic) Blending Processing Cracking Kg CO₂/ 1 1 2 2 1 1 n.a. 0 0 n.a. Kg Product Losses 10% 10% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 26.8

-   STEP 4 Addition of CO₂ emissions related to process losses: If no     actual data is available, losses are calculated very conservatively     with 10% of each intensive processing step. Losses are generally     understood as the additional percentage of material needed to gain     100% of the product: e.g. for one composed molecule 1.1 times of the     reactants and process energy is needed (+10%). Calculate Overall Cos     emissions (OCE) according to following equation:

OCE=(‘Product based CO₂ emissions’+‘Process based CO₂ emissions’)*(1+‘% Losses’)

STEP 5 Normalization to scale 0 to 100 (Negative result is set to 0):

CO₂ Score=(10−Overall CO₂ Emissions)*10

-   -   The normalization with 10 kg CO₂ per Kg product as upper limit         for differentiation (everything above scores 0 as well), covers         the vast majority of products in the portfolio and follows         internal expert judgment.

PROCESS Safety (Eco Toxicity and Toxicity)

Hazard statements form part of the ‘Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals’ (GHS). They are intended to form a set of standardized phrases about the hazards of chemical substances and mixtures.

H200: Physical Hazards (=Toxicity and Eco Toxicity) H300: Health Hazards (=Toxicity) H400: Environmental Hazards (=Eco Toxicity)

The scoring is illustrated by the following Schemes 4 and 5:

Scheme 4 and 5: Scoring

-   STEP 1 Evaluation of the ‘(Eco) Toxicity Material Score’ and     ‘Critical By-Product Score’ of each reactant and its potential     by-products based on the safety according to material properties:

. . . H-Phrases (Eco) >In each step of the value chain H-Phrases of Data Source: Toxicity raw materials are scored according to their List of H-Phrases criticality. The worst result is used for evaluation. (Eco) Toxicity (see Definitions and scorings of each H-Phrase can be Appendix) found here: H-Phrases Eco Toxicity

-   STEP 2 Evaluation of the ‘(Eco) Tox Supplier Score’ of each reactant     based on process safety according to chemical handling (see appendix     for further information):

. . . Country of origin >Countries with a strong Regulatory Data Source: Quality and strong Rule of Law List of World Bank Country get higher ratings than countries Ratings (see Appendix) with lower ratings due to their lower inherent risk. Further descriptions can be found here: World Bank 100 Global bulk products >For big bulk products which are Data Source: → Production volume of produced in more than List of Basic Chemicals and >1.000 t/annum 1.000 t/annum a score of 100 Production Volumes (see applies since products derived in high Appendix) tonnages are considered as less / http://echa.europa.eu/de/ critical. A detailed list can be found here: Basic Chemicals and Production and here http://echa.europa.eu/de/ 1000 t is the threshold value of REACH. Experience has shown that large producers have a high degree of automatization ensuring advanced process control due to REACH requirements and cost pressure. Small suppliers are not as well-positioned. 100 Certification/ SMETA/ISO 14001 >If SMETA/ISO 14001 is audited Data Source: Assessment audited successfully successfully, a score of 100 applies. Certification 075 SEDEX SAQ >If SEDEX SAQ assessment result is Data Source: assessment (low risk) ‘low risk’, a score of 75 applies. Certification 050 SEDEX SAQ >If SEDEX SAQ assessment result is Data Source: assessment (medium ‘medium risk’, a score of 50 applies. Certification risk) 000 SEDEX SAQ >If SEDEX SAQ assessment result is Data Source: assessment (high ‘high risk’, a score of 0 applies. Certification risk)

-   STEP 3 Calculation of the overall ‘(Eco) Tox Score’ of each reactant     and the final product. Distinction is to be made between these two     cases:     -   (i) Base materials: For a base materials, the material score and         supplier score are compared. If the supplier score is better, it         outweighs the material score—following the assumption that a         safe and controlled production environment is able to avert the         risks of hazardous materials:

MAX(‘(Eco) Tox Material Score’;‘(Eco) Tox Supplier Score’)=(Eco) Tox Score

-   -   (ii) Composed products: For composed products the (Eco) Tox         Score combines the hazard and supplier information of the         composed product itself (calculated as above) with the (Eco) Tox         Score of its reactants. The latter accounts for one third of the         overall Tox Score:

⅔*MAX(‘(Eco)Tox Material Score’;‘(Eco)Tox Supplier Score’)+⅓*‘backpack of reactants’=(Eco)Tox Score

-   -   The backpacks of the reactants are the average of their own         (Eco) Tox Scores weighted (by molar mass):

${{\,^{\prime}{backpack}}\mspace{14mu} {of}\mspace{14mu} {reactants}^{\prime}} = \frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{{\;^{\prime}{React}.\mspace{14mu} A}\mspace{14mu} ({Eco})\mspace{14mu} {Tox}\mspace{14mu} {Score}^{\prime}*{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} A}\mspace{14mu} {{Mol}.\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}}} +} \\ {{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} B}\mspace{14mu} ({Eco})\mspace{14mu} {Tox}\mspace{14mu} {Score}^{\prime}*{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} B}\mspace{14mu} {{Mol}.\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}}} \end{pmatrix}}{\left( {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} + {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}}} \right)}$

-   -   The hazard and supplier information of the product counting for         ⅔ of the overall score puts an emphasize on the process steps         closer to Symrise (and its management access)

-   STEP 4 In addition to the ‘(Eco) Tox Score’ the ‘(Eco) Tox Process     Score’ is calculated. This score (only taking the last process step     into account) compares the hazard risk of the product with the one     of the potential by-products. The lowest (worst) score takes the     lead:

MIN(‘(Eco) Tox Material Score’;‘Critical By-Product Score’)=(Eco) Tox Process Score

-   -   Example: If a product has an ‘(Eco) Tox Material Score’ of 75         but its by-product has a score of 25, 25 is used.

Handling of Data Gaps

Usually big petro-chemical bulk commodities are available on the world market. Due to the highly optimized processes and experience with such suppliers it is assumed that such materials are managed in a safe manor and therefore Supplier Score Social and Supplier Score Environmental will be set to a maximum of 100. A list of related materials can be found here: http://echa.europa.eu/de/information-on-chemicals

If no further certification of environmental performance of supplier is available, a general country rating provided by the World Bank is used to create risk factors related to material handling. Countries with a strong Government Effectiveness/Regulatory Quality and strong Rule of Law receive higher ratings than countries with lower ratings due to their lower inherent risk.

Land Use

Land use for cultivation and production units results in a loss of biodiversity. Also discharges of toxic substances in soil and water cause damage to ecosystems. The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme: 6

Scheme 6: Scoring

-   STEP 1 Evaluation of the ‘Land use Score’ of each reactant based on     the following scoring system:

100 Reactant is side product/ >If a substance is a side product from a resource (e.g. orange, results from wood) that is cultivated for other purposes in the first place, a score waste streams of 100 applies. Primary products, such as orange juice or wood for the furniture industry may harm the environment. However, users of so called “waste products” (such as orange peels or eucalyptus leafs) have a low impact since the environment would also be harmed without using waste streams. 100 Reactant results from >If a substance results from chemical synthesis, a score of 100 chemicals synthesis applies. Land used for chemical plants or oil rigs are low compared (without known to agriculture. issues) 075 Acreage of 10 t/ha = >e.g. Potatoes. 75 Source: http://www.agrarheute.com/kartoffelernte-2014-mars 050 Acreage of 1 t/ha && >e.g. Palm Oi <=10 t/ha = 50 Source: http://www.palmoilworld.org/about_malaysian- industry.html 025 Acreage of >100 >e.g. Peppermint. kg/ha & <=1 t/ha = 25 Source: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/farmers-quit- mentha-32914 000 Acreage of <100 >e.g. Vetiver kg/ha = 0 Source: http://www.sugandhim.com/images/f&f_industry_articles/vetiver_ oil_%28Khus%29.pdf 000 No data available >If no data is available, a score of 0 applies

-   STEP 2 Calculation of the ‘Land use Score’ of composed products.     Each reactant counts into the product with the weight of its molar     mass:

$\frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{\;^{\prime}{{React}.\mspace{14mu} A}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} A}\mspace{14mu} {Land}\mspace{14mu} {use}^{\prime}} +} \\ {{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} B}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} B}\mspace{14mu} {Land}\mspace{14mu} {use}\mspace{14mu} {\ldots \mspace{14mu}}^{\prime}} \end{pmatrix}}{\left( {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} + {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}}} \right)} = {{Land}\mspace{14mu} {use}\mspace{14mu} {Score}}$

Renewability

Renewability means the use of renewable resources for environmental protection. The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme 7.

Scheme 6: Scoring

-   STEP 1 Evaluation of the ‘Renewability Score’ of each reactant based     on the following scoring system:

100 Reactant is renewable >If a resource is renewable, a score of 100 Data Source: applies. Research 000 Reactant is not >If a resource is not renewable, a score of 0 Data Source: renewable applies. Research

-   STEP 2 Calculation of the ‘Renewability Score’ of composed products.     The calculation is based on the number of C-atoms:

Example SANDRANOL (Only the Renewable C-Atoms are Labelled)

-   -   10 of 14 C-atoms (71.43%) in the molecule come from renewable         sources→Renewability Score=71.43:

Case 1: The number of C-Atoms of the product equals the sum of the C-Atoms of the reactants:

$\frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{\;^{\prime}{{React}.\mspace{14mu} A}\mspace{14mu} C\text{-}{Atoms}^{\prime}*{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} A}\mspace{14mu} {{Renewab}.\mspace{14mu} {Score}^{\prime}}} +} \\ {{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} B}\mspace{14mu} C\text{-}{Atoms}^{\prime}*{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} B}\mspace{14mu} {{Renewab}.\mspace{14mu} {Score}^{\prime}}} \end{pmatrix}}{{\,^{\prime}{Product}}\mspace{14mu} C\text{-}{Atoms}^{\prime}} = {{Renewability}\mspace{14mu} {Score}}$

Case 2: The product has less C-Atoms than the reactants (C-Atoms going into waste or by-product): Expert judgement is needed to allocate the renewable and nonrenewable C-Atoms to product and waste/by-product.

Traceability

Supply Chain transparency and disclosure are essential for the improvement of sustainability throughout the whole value chain. The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme 8.

Scheme 8: Scoring

-   STEP 1 Evaluation of the ‘Traceability Score’ of each reactant based     on the following scoring system:

100 Reactant results from >If a substance results from chemical Data Source: chemicals synthesis synthesis, a score of 100 applies. It is Research (without known issues) assumed that chemical companies are able to trace back raw materials by unique identifiers or defined time frames due to their high grade of automation. 100 Global bulk products >For big bulk products which are Data Source: → Production volume produced in more than 1.000 t/annum a List of Basic Chemicals and of score of 100 applies since products Production Volumes >1.000 t/annum derived in high tonnages are considered (Appendix) as less critical. A detailed list can be / http://echa.europa.eu/de/ found here: Basic Chemicals and Production and here http://echa.europa.eu/de/ 1000 t is the threshold value of REACH. Experience has shown that large producers have a high degree of automatization ensuring advanced process control due to REACH requirements and cost pressure. Small suppliers are not as well-positioned. 100 Traceable up to the >If a reactant is traceable up to the Data Source: field field, it is considered the highest level Research of traceability and therefore scored with 100. 075 Grower known >If the grower is known, a score of 75 Data Source: applies. Research 050 Region of country of >If the region within the country of Data Source: origin known origin is known, a score of 50 applies. Research 025 Country of origin >If the country of origin is known, a Data Source: known score of 25 applies. Research 000 Only trader known >If only the trader is known, no Data Source: transparency is assured. Research 000 No data available >If no data is available, a score of 0 Data Source: applies /

-   STEP 2 Calculation of the ‘Traceability Score’ of composed products.     Each reactant counts into the product result related to molar     masses:

$\frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} A}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactt}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Traceability}^{\prime}} +} \\ {{{\,^{\prime}{React}}.\mspace{14mu} B}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactt}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Traceability}\mspace{14mu} {\ldots \mspace{14mu}}^{\prime}} \end{pmatrix}}{\left( {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} \right)} = {{Traceability}\mspace{14mu} {Score}}$

Generation of Waste—E-Factor

To assess waste generated by synthesis, the so-called E-factor (environmental factor) is used. It is calculated using this formula: E-factor=kg waste/kg reactants. The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme 9.

Scheme 9: Scoring

-   STEP 1 Research of the E-factor of each basic material in public     databases like Probas -   STEP 2 Calculation of the E-factor of the reactants of composed     products. Each reactant counts into the product result related to     molar masses:

$\frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} E\text{-}{Factor}^{\prime}} +} \\ {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} E\text{-}{Factor}\mspace{14mu} \ldots^{\prime}} \end{pmatrix}}{{\,^{\prime}{Product}}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} = {{Reactant}\mspace{14mu} {based}\mspace{14mu} E\text{-}{Factor}}$

-   STEP 3 Calculation of the E-factor due to unused atoms:

$\frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} + {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}\mspace{14mu} \ldots^{\prime}} -} \\ {{\,^{\prime}{Product}}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} \end{pmatrix}}{{\,^{\prime}{Product}}\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} = {{unused}\mspace{14mu} {atoms}}$

-   STEP 4 Calculation of the overall E-factor including losses: Losses     are handled identically to the CO2 calculation. In contrast to     unused atoms losses do not relate to waste by design (by-products     etc.) but to waste due to losses of the product itself. For further     information see section 3 (CO₂)

(Reactant based E-Factor+unused Atoms)*(1+Losses)=Overall E-Factor

-   STEP 5 Normalization to scale 0 to 100 (Negative result is set to     0):

(10−Overall E-Factor)*10=Waste/E-Factor Score

-   -   The normalization with 10 kg waste per kg product as upper limit         for differentiation (everything above scores 0 as well) covers         the vast majority of products in the portfolio and follows         internal expert judgment.

Exceptions

100 Reactant is side product/ >If a substance is a side product from a Data Source: results from waste resource (e.g. orange, wood) that is cultivated Research streams for other purposes in the first place, a score of 100 applies. Primary products, such as orange juice or wood for the furniture industry may harm the environment. However, users of so called “waste products” (such as orange peels or eucalyptus leafs) have a low impact since the environment would also be harmed with- out using waste streams. 100 Waste recyclable >Recycling of material is usually a valuable Data Source: substitute of raw materials. The energy used Research to produce this waste is already included in the CO₂ parameter. 100 Waste re-usable as side >If it is known that waste (e.g. NaCl in Data Source: stream Chloralkali process) is recovered and used as a raw Research material, it is not longer considered as waste.

Waste used as fuel or as fertilizer is considered as waste, because most of the Symrise fragrance raw materials are categorized this way and therefore it's not a differentiator.

Handling of Data Gaps

Usually suppliers prefer to not share process parameter to protect their knowledge. For processing steps with high energy consumptions and material losses (e.g. crystallization and distillation) standard factors related to own manufacturing data and Probas information are used.

Water Consumption and/or Pollution

The availability of water is dependent on water resources on one hand and water removal on the other. If water removal exceeds a certain percentage of resources, we speak of ‘water stress’. ‘Extreme water stress’ applies when the removal exceeds 40% of the resources. The scoring is illustrated by the following Scheme 10.

Scheme 10: Scoring

-   STEP 1 Evaluation of the ‘Water Score’ of each reactant based on the     following scoring system:

100 Reactant is side >If a substance is a side product from a resource (e.g. Data Source: product/results orange, wood) that is cultivated for other purposes in the Research from waste first place, a score of 100 applies. Primary products, such streams as orange juice or wood for the furniture industry may harm the environment. However, users of so called “waste products” (such as orange peels or eucalyptus leafs) have a low impact since the environment would also be harmed without using waste streams. 100 Reactant results >If a substance results from chemical synthesis, a score of Data Source: from chemicals 100 applies. Agricultural chemical processes are usually not Research synthesis/ that water demanding product with very low water consumption 100 Global bulk  

  For big bulk products which are produced in more Data Source: products than 1.000 t/annum a score of 100 applies since List of Basic Chemicals → Production products derived in high tonnages are considered and Production volume of as less critical. A detailed list can be found here: Volumes >1.000 t/annum Basic Chemicals and Production (Appendix)  

  and here http://echa.europa.eu/de/ 1000 t is the threshold value of REACH. Experience has shown that large producers have a high degree of auto- matization ensuring advanced process control due to REACH requirements and cost pressure. Small suppliers are not as well-positioned. Also due to high automatization, water use is comparably low (approx. 1 m³/t). 100 Sourcing from >If a process shows high water consumption, it needs to Data Source: non-stressed be checked if water is sourced from so called “water Research/Link areas stressed” areas to evaluate the materiality correctly. To identify such risk, the following water tool is used: http://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/water- stress-country A rating of 3 to 5 is considered as “water stress”. 075 Sourcing from >e.g. Vetiver (regulates groundwater) Data Source: water stressed Source: http://www.vetiver.com/THN_vetiver_water.pdf Research/Link area-very low consumption (<0.1 m³/kg) 050 Sourcing from >e.g. Citrus fruits, pulses, roots, tubers, corn, sugarcane Data Source: water stressed Source: http://www.lenntech.com/water-food- Research/Link area-low agriculture.htm consumption (<=1 m³/kg) 025 Sourcing from >e.g. Palm oil, Rice, Wheat, Wood Data Source: water-stressed Source: Research/Link area ttp://www.sert.nu.ac.th/IIRE/FP_V6N1%281%29.pdf and medium http://www.lenntech.com/water-food-agriculture.htm consumption (>=1 m³/kg && <10 m³/kg) 000 Sourcing from >e.g. Peppermint, Patchouli Data Source: water-stressed Source: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/farmers- Research/Link area quit-mentha-32914 high consumption >=10 m3/kg) 000 No data available >If no data is available, a score of 0 applies Data Source: /

-   STEP 2 Calculation of the ‘Water Score’ of composed products. Each     reactant counts into the product result related to molar masses     used:

$\frac{\begin{pmatrix} {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Water}^{\prime}} +} \\ {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}*{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Water}\mspace{14mu} \ldots^{\prime}} \end{pmatrix}}{\,^{\prime}\left( {{{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} A\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}} + {{\,^{\prime}{Reactant}}\mspace{14mu} B\mspace{14mu} {Molar}\mspace{14mu} {Mass}^{\prime}}} \right)} = {{Water}\mspace{14mu} {Score}}$

SUMMARY

The following chapter shall provide a brief overview how the parameters explained above are calculated. As explained above a lot of indicators and values (such as for example biodegradability or carbon dioxide emissions) can be taken from public data bases. In case not indicated otherwise numbers shall be taken as percent.

The score for biodegradability of the compound or the compounds is evaluated according to OECD Method 301/302 or equivalent.

The score for the overall ecological toxicity S(ETOX) is calculated according to the following equation (3):

S(ETOX)=⅔*MAX(Ma;Pa)+⅓*((Mb*Cb)+(Mz*Cz))  (3)

wherein P stands for the Product Eco Tox Score and S stands for Supplier Performance Score on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.

The score for the overall human toxicity S(HTOX) is calculated according to the following equation (4):

S(HTOX)=⅔*MAX(Ma;Pa)+⅓*(Mb*Cb)+(Mz*Cz)  (4)

wherein P stands for the Product Human Tox Score and S stands for Supplier Performance Score on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.

The score for the overall land use S(LU) is calculated according to the following equation (5):

$\begin{matrix} {{S({LU})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}}} & (5) \end{matrix}$

wherein M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and D stands for its Land Use on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.

The score for the overall renewability S(REN) is calculated according to the following equation (6):

$\begin{matrix} {{S({REN})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{R_{a}}} & (6) \end{matrix}$

wherein M stands for the count of C atoms of a specific compound, D stands for its Renewability and P stands for C atoms of product of the synthesis on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.

The score for the overall traceability S(TRA) is calculated according to the following equation (7):

$\begin{matrix} {{S({TRA})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}}} & (7) \end{matrix}$

wherein M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and D stands for its Traceability on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.

The score for the overall waste generation S(WAS) is calculated according to the following equation (8):

$\begin{matrix} {{A\; 1} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*C_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*C_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*C_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*C_{z}} \right)}}{P_{a}}} & \left( {8a} \right) \\ {{A\; 2} = \frac{\left( {M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}} \right) - P_{a}}{P_{a}}} & \left( {8b} \right) \\ {B = \underset{100}{\left( {{A\; 1} + {A\; 2}} \right)*\left( {100 + L} \right)}} & \left( {8c} \right) \\ {{S({WAS})} = {\left( {10 - B} \right)*10}} & \left( {8d} \right) \end{matrix}$

wherein:

-   M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and -   C stands for its e-Factor     -   on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds -   P stands for molar mass of product of the synthesis -   Al means the reactant based e-factor -   A2 means the loss of molar mass during synthesis -   L stands for the losses of compounds during processing -   B represents the overall e-factor.

The score for the overall water consumption S(WAT) is calculated according to the following equation (9):

$\begin{matrix} {{S({WAT})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}}} & (9) \end{matrix}$

wherein M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and D stands for its Traceability on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.

In the following the present invention is illustrated by working examples without limiting the invention to them.

EXAMPLES

Method Description

Fragrance Raw Material Scoring

-   (I) For each fragrance raw material, a product sheet is set up in a     tailor-made IT system     -   (a) Evaluation of synthesis route: The common synthesis route of         each raw material is identified by a senior chemist with         advanced knowledge of the Symrise raw material portfolio and         material flows         -   Handling of data gaps. The main challenge of the scorecard             evaluation is to identify the most common route of synthesis             due to lack of information from suppliers. For some             ingredients, well-known and robust processes are established             which can be found in the literature or patents. However, in             some cases there are several possibilities to produce the             same chemical depending on availability of raw materials             and/or technologies available on site. It is assumed that             the environmental impact between several possibilities is             not that high, because raw material costs on the global spot             market are usually comparable and therefore environmental             costs and resource consumption should also be on a similar             level.     -   (b) Collection of data: Raw material information including         sustainability data are collected:         -   (b1) Suppliers are ask to deliver data to clarify             uncertainties, e.g. renewable source, palm oil derivatives         -   (b2) Public databases like Probas, Gestis or REACH are             reviewed for relevant data         -   (b3) If no relevant data is available, desk research is             conducted. Studies and literature are used as reference.         -   (b4) Data gaps are filled with generic data from defined             sources (see reference in each parameter)         -   The overall data is consolidated in one table which is             exportable to Excel     -   (c) Definition of ID: The raw material data is assigned to         Symrise product codes for further processing -   (II) For each ingredient/reactant a product sheet is maintained. -   (III) The fragrance raw materials are evaluated according to all 10     scorecard criteria. The fragrance raw material score is calculated     automatically based on the synthesis route and all collected data. -   (IV) Analysis and comparison: The objective of the product     sustainability scorecard is to increase transparency and knowledge     about raw material used for fragrance composition. Different raw     materials can be compared according to their scores.

Product Scoring

-   (I) The recipe/fragrance formula of a Symrise product is set up -   (II) Based on a recipe/fragrance formula, a product score is     calculated automatically by consolidating all involved fragrance raw     material scores

The results are consolidated as shown in FIG. 2a and can be exported as radar diagram as shown in FIG. 2 b.

The user will receive information about the ratio covered as depicted in Table 5.

TABLE 5 User information Calculation Figure Information Quantity 26.288 Total production volume in kg Quantity covered 22.006 Share of total volume that is covered by scoring methodology in kg Ratio covered 83.4% Minimum of 80% is exceeded Result/Quality 67.6 Final product score

A route cause analysis for each scorecard criteria can be conducted via an automatic analysis tool in each product sheet directly as shown in FIG. 3.

Example 1

44_Dihydro Myrcenol (44DHM)

As a first step the synthesis route of 44DHM is evaluated (FIG. 4) and information concerning the raw materials including sustainability data (e.g. molar mass, processing, C-atoms, GHS hazard statements etc.) are collected. In the present example 44DHM was used in a composition comprising also dipropylene glycol (DPG) and alpha-hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (HCA). For each component a product data sheet was prepared.

44DHM was evaluated according to all 10 scorecard criteria. The score was calculated automatically based on the data inserted. Finally, the overall data was consolidated. The results are shown in Table 6:

TABLE 6 Consolidated score of 44DHM Parameter Result Carbon dioxide 34.8 Renewability 100.0 Product Tox 80.38 Product EcoTox 87.73 E-Factor 92.90 Water 100.00 Biodiversity 100.00 Land use 100.00 Traceability 11.68 Biodegradability 100.00 RESULT (AVERAGE) 80.7

The details of the evaluation are shown in FIGS. 5A to 5J. The recipe/fragrance formula consisting of 44DHM, DPG and HCA was set up as depicted in FIG. 6; all scores were above 70. The total score for the formulation resulted to 82.2 

1. A method for identifying fragrance compounds with low environmental impact and high degree of sustainability encompassing the following steps: (a) providing a fragrance compound or a fragrance composition of interest; (b) calculating scores for each of the following parameters (b1) biodegradability; (b2) biodiversity; (b3) carbon dioxide emission; (b4) process safety with regard to ecological toxicity; (b5) process safety with regard to human toxicity; (b6) land use; (b7) renewability; (b8) traceability; (b9) waste generation; and (b10) water consumption and/or pollution, (c) summing up all scores and calculate the average product sustainability score (PSC); and (d) proceed with those candidates showing a PSC of at least
 70. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for biodegradability of the compound or the compounds is calculated according to OECD Method 301/302.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall biodiversity S(BIO) is calculated according to the following equation (1): $\begin{matrix} {{S({BIO})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}}} & (1) \end{matrix}$ wherein: M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and D stands for its biodiversity on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall carbon dioxide impact S(CO2) is calculated according to following equation (2): $\begin{matrix} {{A\; 1} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*C_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*C_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*C_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*C_{z}} \right)}}{P_{a}}} & \left( {2a} \right) \\ {B = \frac{\left( {{A\; 1} + F} \right)*\left( {100 + L} \right)}{100}} & \left( {2b} \right) \\ {{S\left( {{CO}\; 2} \right)} = {\left( {10 - B} \right)*10}} & \left( {2c} \right) \end{matrix}$ wherein: M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and C stands for its carbon dioxide emission on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds F stands for processing related carbon dioxide emission Al means the reactant based carbon dioxide emission L stands for the losses of compounds during processing B represents the overall carbon dioxide emissions.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall ecological toxicity S(ETOX) is calculated according to the following equation (3): S(ETOX)=⅔*MAX(Ma;Pa)+⅓*((Mb*Cb)+(Mz*Cz))  3 wherein: P stands for the Product Eco Tox Score and S stands for Supplier Performance Score on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall human toxicity S(HTOX) is calculated according to the following equation (4): S(HTOX)=⅔*MAX(Ma;Pa)+⅓*(Mb*Cb)+ . . . (Mz*Cz)  (4) wherein: P stands for the Product Human Tox Score and S stands for Supplier Performance Score on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall land use S(LU) is calculated according to the following equation (5): $\begin{matrix} {{S({LU})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}}} & (5) \end{matrix}$ wherein: M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and D stands for its Land Use on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall renewability S(REN) is calculated according to the following equation (6): $\begin{matrix} {{S({REN})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{R_{a}}} & (6) \end{matrix}$ wherein: M stands for the count of C atoms of a specific compound and D stands for its Renewability P stands for C atoms of product of the synthesis on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall traceability S(TRA) is calculated according to the following equation (7): $\begin{matrix} {{S({TRA})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}}} & (7) \end{matrix}$ wherein: M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and D stands for its Traceability on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall waste generation S(WAS) is calculated according to the following equation (8): $\begin{matrix} {{A\; 1} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*C_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*C_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*C_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*C_{z}} \right)}}{P_{a}}} & \left( {8a} \right) \\ {{A\; 2} = \frac{\left( {M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}} \right) - P_{a}}{P_{a}}} & \left( {8b} \right) \\ {B = \underset{100}{\left( {{A\; 1} + {A\; 2}} \right)*\left( {100 + L} \right)}} & \left( {8c} \right) \\ {{S({WAS})} = {\left( {10 - B} \right)*10}} & \left( {8d} \right) \end{matrix}$ wherein: M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and C stands for its e-Factor on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds P stands for molar mass of product of the synthesis A1 means the reactant based e-factor A2 means the loss of molar mass during synthesis L stands for the losses of compounds during processing B represents the overall e-factor.
 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the score for the overall water consumption S(WAT) is calculated according to the following equation (9): $\begin{matrix} {{S({WAT})} = \frac{\left. {\left( {M_{a}*D_{a}} \right) + {M_{b}*D_{b}}} \right) + \left( {M_{c}*D_{c}} \right) + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} \left( {M_{z}*D_{z}} \right)}}{M_{a} + M_{b} + M_{c} + {\ldots \mspace{14mu} M_{z}}}} & (9) \end{matrix}$ wherein: M stands for the molar mass of a specific compound and D stands for its Traceability on condition that the formulation contains a to z compounds. 